Home / Culture and Society / Hubris Is The Correct Name

Hubris Is The Correct Name

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Blogcritics was kind enough to publish my article, “Context Is Everything” on September 9. Dan Miller, in comment #8, said that “Hubris” is a better middle name for Barack Obama, since he has earned that name. I cannot argue with Dan’s comment, or his excellent article supporting his assertion. All I can do is further illustrate Dan’s point. Recent revelations show the new name to be much more appropriate. So, we can now refer to Obama as Barack Hubris Obama.

Now we fast forward a bit. Blogcritics was again kind enough to publish my “How Much More Can We Take?” on September 12. It was, as usual, pooh-poohed by the Democrats/liberals/progressives (yes, that’s intended to be a pejorative term) who seem to haunt this otherwise respectable web site. Yes, I, just in case y’all missed it, insulted Democrats/liberals/progressives. Permit me to be specific: in comment #17, Eric Strauss said, “To Glenn Contrarian: Man, you absolutely crushed Warren. I bet that felt good, huh? I laughed out loud reading your comments. I almost feel a little bad for Warren.” I think that comment pretty well summarizes the nature of Glenn’s and some other rants.

But I digress. One of the themes of the “How Much More Can We Take?” article was about how Obama and others in his administration were quick to blame a video that was unflattering to Mohammed as the cause for the “spontaneous” embassy and consulate (sovereign US territory) attacks, and the murder of four American citizens. I said, in the article, “But now we learn that the attack at a US consulate in Benghazi may have been planned and backed by al-Qaeda.”

Now we find that the Obama administration knew within 24 hours that the attacks were not spontaneous; that they were planned. Yet on September 14, fully 72 hours after the attacks, White House press secretary Jay Carney said, “Let’s be clear, these protests were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region.” When asked specifically about the Benghazi consulate attack, Carney said, “We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack.”

Obama’s security failure and attempted coverup are, indeed, a show of how self-confident he is and has become with the MSM, and how he expects the MSM to believe every word he utters or orders released. By the way, “self-confident” is a definition of the word “hubris.”

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), has this statement on his website:

U.S. Senators John McCain (R-Arizona), Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), Kelly Ayotte (R-New Hampshire) and Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) sent a letter to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice seeking clarification on her statements that the September 11 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya was the result of a ‘spontaneous reaction.’ The evidence clearly shows the attack that resulted in the death of four Americans including Ambassador Chris Stevens was planned and coordinated. In the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attack in Benghazi that resulted in the death of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, you made several troubling statements that are inconsistent with the facts and require explanation.”  [emphasis added]

And Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) said, “People kept calling for the truth and, in the end, the administration realized that what they had tried to put together – blaming it on this movie and having it as a spontaneous act rather as being a terrorist act – wasn’t going to sell because it obviously wasn’t true.”

So, indeed, Barack Obama did earn the middle name “Hubris,” and it took only two “spontaneous” attacks and four American lives to earn it. Not bad.

But wait! Obama said he was going to do things to make the Islamic world love us. If so, why all the violent protests despite the United States government’s repudiation of the video?

Democrats/liberals/progressives will offer sources saying that Bush was complicit in 9/11, and will cite “crackpot truther” and speculation sources, but no one will offer any sources from the Bush administration. But we have, from no less than Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense (and Obama administration member) saying that terrorists planned the consulate attack. Panetta said, “As we determined the details of what took place there and how that attack took place, it became clear that there were terrorists who planned that attack.”

That’s just my opinion. But my opinion is shaped by sourced facts, unlike most Democrat/liberal/progressives, who offer knee-jerk (another pejorative term), unsourced opinions. So, all you Democrat/liberal/progressives, offer, if you can, sources to show me the error of my ways.

Powered by


  • Igor

    Reggie, are you a professional psychologist or psychiatrist? If not, how did you decide upon the “Narcissistic” label? I suspect that you just took it from the 2008 anti-Obama diatribes.

    Truly, one can assign that label to almost any politician, since they must have self-confidence beyond anything the rest of us require, so they look exaggerated. Certainly GW Bush had an abundance of that self-confidence (or ‘narcissism’ as we amateurs might say) to do what he did.

    I think true ‘narcissism’ involves a lot of self-preening, normally. After all, the original Narcissus was condemned by the gods for constantly gazing at his own image in the pond, so they turned him into a flower that grows at the edge of ponds and leans over the water.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Reggie –

    Did Obama decide that he would get the Nobel Prize? Or did someone else decide that?

    Remember, conservatives are SO ticked about Obama’s “apology tour”, remember? But anyone who’s ever dealt with someone who’s truly narcissistic (I have done so and it was no fun at all) knows that such people NEVER apologize for anything, never, ever, ever. So, no, he’s not narcissistic – I know that when I see it.

    Take another example – during the debt ceiling crisis last year, John Boehner bragged that he was getting 98% of what he asked for (and the Tea Party refused to give him support because he was willing to give Obama that remaining 2%). Obama was going to agree to the deal – but Boehner couldn’t sell it to enough Tea Partiers to make it work. The fact that Obama was willing to make such a one-sided deal NOT in his favor tells me that he’s not especially power-hungry. The same goes for the Health Care Reform bill – Obama (like the rest of us progressives) wanted single-payer so bad he could taste it…but what did he do when the CBO told him how much more it would cost? He chose a patently Republican idea – Romneycare, which was first proposed by the Heritage Foundation and supported by Gingrich – in order to make Health Care Reform happen. That’s not the actions of a power-hungry man – that’s the actions of a pragmatic man…

    …and my oldest son will soon have health care that he couldn’t get before as a result.

  • Reggie Beauchamps

    Not exactly Glenn as I believe that all politicians, regardless of the flavor, are self-centered, power hungry, narcissists to some degree. But our current leader takes it to previously unobserved levels. He’s bought into the garbage narrative of his own life. Take the nobel peace prize for example. Can you honestly say tell me he deserved it?

  • Re: comment #19, Jet, sorry to hear that you are having physical troubles. Hang in there!

  • Thanks Glenn-I bet Warren missed me too. Both wrists broken-one broken elbow, other had to be replace w/artificial one-nerve damage-have to type w/ two fingers-sometimes takes five minutes to peck out this much w/a mistake every 5-6 words… groan

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Reggie sees a conservative in the mirror and calls him ‘Obama’.

  • Reggie Beauchamps

    Hubris, Narcissus, he goes by many names.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Jet –

    Good to see you’re still around – I was getting worried!

  • I thought the rube just mispelled rubbish.

  • Does your back hurt when you kiss your own ass like that Warren?

    A suggestion: run for office yourself so you can see how out of touch with reality you really are-not that a few thousand local voters friends and neighbors telling you you’re wrong and dilusional would makw a difference in your state of mind.

    put up or shut up.

  • Warren, Glenn’s #9 is in response to Baronius’ #8, not to you, and is typical of the tangents many Blogcritics comments threads veer off on – something you should have realized by now. Don’t feel that should prevent you from chiming in, though.

    He’s already spoken to #2 himself.

    And since you bring it up in the article, both his #6 and #12 on your previous effort “How Much More Can We Take?” directly address several of your points. Whether you agree with him or not is up to you, but it’s not cool to dismiss him as ranting just because you don’t.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    What does naming the organization that killed the ambassador have to do with your article concerning the Obama administration’s reaction to the event?

    The mind boggles….

  • Another update: “In addition, multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the Committee that, prior to the September 11 attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington.”

    I guess the denial was “spontaneous.”

  • Well, I see that no one could offer any sources to show me the error of my ways.

    Re: comment #4, Dr Rubish Dreadful, please tell me how to respond to any of Glenn’s comments about my articles. Look, for example, at comment #2. Please tell me what ANYTHING Glenn said has to do with my article. And comment #9 as well. These are typical of Glenn’s comments, and are quite difficult to which to respond.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Baronius –

    Did you notice you’re only referring to conservative talk show hosts? Of course, they’re the only really big ones since the largest talk-radio moguls are conservative and have the final say as to who they broadcast – and yes, their say-so – and NOT the market – has a significant role in who is able to hear what.

    Liberal talk show hosts do have their own successes, though – one is now a senator (Al Franken), and Rachel Maddow recently beat out Bill O’Reilly in the ratings. On one day. Wow.

    Anyway, when it comes to ‘outrageousness’, among the liberal talk-show hosts it is true that the more successful ones display that same sense of righteous indignation (just on the flip side of the issues that drive conservative talk show hosts)…but while I do hear the occasional hyperbole, the only one that goes really insultingly overboard is Mike Malloy – and I don’t listen to him because of it. He’s the only one I’d ever compare to Savage or Levin.

    But if you want an honestly good laugh, listen to Stephanie Miller – you can listen to her online on WCPT on weekday mornings from 6-9, Pacific Time.

  • Flared Shrub Druid

    Do you really consider yourself somewhat like a rube?

    Not really, Vocals. But since Warren has now got bored with the Hussein thing, I figured it was time for a slightly different kind of fun.

  • Baronius

    There is a tell-tale sign of decline that I’ve noticed among radio show hosts. The ones on their way up say outrageous things. The ones on their way down talk about how outrageous they are. Mark Levin is one of the former; Michael Savage is one of the latter. Don Imus is the epitome of the latter, a broken, unpopular host who consoles himself with delusions of scandalousness.

    A word of advice to the author of this article: don’t write about how provocative you are. Only those past their prime narrate their own highlight reel. The stars are too busy making new highlights.

  • Igor

    The middle-name thing became simply tiresome months ago.

  • Clav


    Do you really consider yourself somewhat like a rube? I’m astonished; I don’t consider you as such at all, although I was surprised that an English gentleman would be interested in American rodeo.

  • Warren, I’ve noticed that rather than address any of Glenn’s comments on your articles, you’re in the habit of simply dismissing them as “rants”.

    Can you show us why they are so, i.e. without substance or cogent argument? Because otherwise a neutral(ish) observer might start to think that you don’t have any answers to him…

  • Thanks, Warren, for the plug. By the way, did you watch the Univision Fast and Furious program last night? I understand that Univision has at least a few Hispanic viewers. An excerpt, with English subtitles, is at the link. ABC is an anti-Obama, right wing Fascist network, so don’t be alarmed.

    I have been waiting to hear President Obama’s reaction to it, but haven’t yet. Although the entire mess obviously was not his fault and is of little interest to anyone but anti-immigrant jerks, perhaps he will expound on the subject during the Wednesday debates. Will he also deal with el Presidente Chávez’ recent endorsement? He should be very proud.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Warren –

    So…can you name the organization that killed the ambassador?

    And while we’re at it, are you of the opinion that the polls are all skewed, that the pollsters are lying to us?

  • Update: see this source